Saved by the School Community Strategy: School-Community Alliances for Promoting School Success in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods During Times of Austerity

Abstract

Whilst there are many advocates of the notion that a fluid school-neighborhood relationship can improve education, there are gaps in the conceptual and empirical study of school and community governance models. This article analyses how two schools and social actors in two disadvantaged neighborhoods relate, collaborate, and organize to encourage school success for all students. The results make visible the origin and organizational dynamics of the school-community alliances in each community. Partnerships, based on a bottom-linked governance system at the school and community level, are a strategic approach for working together in developing a citizenry that can address both present and future challenges.

Keywords

school-community relationship school success young people disadvantaged neighborhoods governance austerity

Introduction

In the global economy, education is seen from two perspectives as part of the knowledge society: first, as a new market and as an institution of social reproduction; second, as a driver of social transformation where urban areas, communities, schools, and teachers are key actors in pioneering this social change (Pink & Noblit, 2017).

In this complex, diverse, and ever-changing society, because of the demands of knowledge and the abuse of information, we have seen strong trends towards social polarization and an intensification of inequalities (Cuca & Ranci, 2016). This society — with its significant challenges but also multiple opportunities — requires highly-skilled professionals who can engage in the creation of more inclusive and equitable environments. Thus, it is necessary to build citizenship spaces and to tackle present and future challenges in a creative and responsible manner (Pradel et al., 2020). Similarly, there is social consensus that a quality education is the cornerstone for building a better world. This challenge — and commitment — is expressed in international agendas, such as the Lisbon Strategy 2000–2010, the European Strategy 2020, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,¹ the priority of which has been to reduce school failure and Early Leaving from Education and Training (ELET) since the late 1990s.

In a global context of growing inequalities, urban education has progressively become the central focus of educators and policy makers, where the main challenge is to increase the social, symbolic, cultural, and economic capital of students that belong to lower income social classes (Pink & Noblit, 2017). This challenge related to cross-cultural understanding and learning has implications for policy and social justice educators, such as: (a) rethinking the focus of educational inequality on the achievement gap; (b) fleeing from the mantra about closing this gap between affluent and low-income students; (c) reflecting on the obsession with quantifying school performance through achievement assessments, which ignore the life contexts of students and the paths available; and, (d) thinking about addressing inequalities through the opportunities available and the school and its social conditions (Carter, 2018).

Herein, urban education is understood as a research area that explores the contextualization of educational problems in urban settings, focusing on the relationship between the study of spatial segregation and school choice, learning strategies in vulnerable contexts, the role of families and the community in school performance, and the teaching staff adaptation to urban challenges (Welsh & Swain, 2020). In addition, its study field has also researched urban schools where the children of low-income families obtain positive academic results, due to the optimal organization of school time and the community commitment (Snellma et al., 2015), as well as teachers’ roles and school leadership as significant intra-school factors to fight against socio-educational inequalities, particularly in schools with concentrated poverty (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2018; Johnson, 2007). The literature on urban education in the US has traditionally been concerned with the problems of racially segregated cities, and the pervasive inequality in economic and social status that characterizes them, while explaining school outcomes (Milner, 2012). Nonetheless, some studies have reinforced the importance of moving towards a more complex understanding of how individual, family, community, school, and societal factors interact to create school failure and success for some students (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Meanwhile, the European literature has focused on the importance of social class and cultural capital as categories of analysis of school segregation, at the expense of the ethnicity variable influence (Öhrn & Weiner, 2007). Concerns have arisen regarding how the school and the socioeconomic mixing of students can influence the promotion of democratic values in a sense that goes beyond individual freedom of choice, fostering justice, social capital as a key element for social cohesion, equity, and social transformation (Öhrn, 2012). Specific studies have also focused on the treatment of cultural differences in classrooms as well as the educational outcomes of ethnic minorities in each country. In this regard, in the European context, four key ideas have increasingly been restated. One is that education transcends the walls of the school to permeate all the spaces and times of the person. Secondly, school success — understood as academic persistence (Sánchez-Martí, 2016) — is closely linked to the conditions of educability² (Bonal & Tarabini, 2016) and path dependency³ (Pradel et al., 2020), therefore it is essential to understand the urban contexts and to provide continuity and educational coherence between contexts. A third idea is that an entire tribe is necessary to raise a child, which highlights the protective and empowering personal and collective developmental value of social capital and community (Blokland, 2017). The fourth idea is that school success has more to do with the life course perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Leonard, 2011) than the sum of uncoordinated actions — this refers to the continuity and coherence between the various actions taking place during childhood, adolescence and youth.

Despite the involvement and efforts of professionals, schools cannot be agents of social transformation in isolation, since educational inequality is a multidimensional phenomenon that requires multidimensional solutions (Carter, 2018) from multiple actors. Thus, a growing body of literature has emerged on the increasing need for collaboration and joint efforts between neighborhood and institutions (Nast & Blokland, 2013) and between neighborhood and school (Epstein et al., 2011; Valli et al., 2016, 2018), from a position in which school leaders are dedicated to dialog, parent advocacy, and community revitalization (Auerbach, 2010).

However, in the North American context, more work is needed to provide an empirical basis for advancing and reimagining urban education research, policy, and practice. Future studies should: (i) delve deeply into understanding both the universality of urban education problems and the local context; (ii) prioritize the exploration of creative interventions for improvement; (iii) explore social and political factors (from an intersectional approach), which lead to region-specific problems and solutions (Pink & Noblit, 2017); and (iv) leverage solutions that address the root causes of racial inequality and reinforce honest dialog and shared engagement between people and institutions to finding inclusive and equitable formulas (Ginwright & Seigel, 2019).

In Europe, whilst many authors (Linse, 2011; Muñoz-Moreno et al., 2013) agree that there is a need for a fluid, constant and cohesive school-neighborhood (community) relationship in favor of equity, well-being, social cohesion, resilience and social justice, relatively few studies have explored the form that this relationship should take, the values that should underpin it, or what types of leadership and collaborations should sustain. These gaps become even more relevant if we consider the current political, social, and economic context, which is strongly characterized by four issues.

First, the social and economic crisis arisen from austerity measures implemented in 2008 — now exacerbated by the effects of COVID-19 — has intensified the already existing social inequalities (Andrews, 2021) and increased new urban poverty in contemporary cities, particularly in multicultural neighborhoods and vulnerable areas (Benassi & Morlicchio, 2019). Second, strong tensions between neoliberalism and democracy are evident, which are questioning the pillars of representative democracy (Todorov, 2014) and, colonizing education from a lens of instrumental rationality, based in economic parameters including the obsession with adapting schools to indicators and rankings such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and productivity or labor market needs (Wenman, 2013). Third, the city and the neighborhood have re-emerged as crucial places and actors in the fight against poverty and social exclusion, as providers of well-being and opportunities (Andreotti et al., 2012); as essential axes for inclusive quality education (IAEC (International Association of Educating Cities), 2021); and, as protagonists of innovative solidarity experiences, inclusion and empowerment projects, and community alliances (Kneebone & Reeves, 2016; Pradel et al., 2020). Fourth, despite certain criticisms of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) that are mainly concerned with its inconsistency and difficulty to quantify, implement and monitor (Cummings et al., 2017), some of the challenges set out in this 2030 Agenda include goals 4 (quality education), 10 (reduced inequalities) and 11 (sustainable cities and communities) to define a new global social contract that leaves no one behind (United Nations, 2020).

Consequently, this article focuses on examining two school-community approaches at partnering in disadvantaged neighborhoods that are aimed at promoting school success of their students. Thus, the article starts by providing a review of the literature on school-community relations in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

School-Community Relations in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

Throughout the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, the poorest school outcomes and the highest ELET rates are spatially concentrated in disadvantaged and low-income neighborhoods in large cities (Kerr et al., 2016). From a Critical Positive Youth Development (CPYD) framework, this multidimensional problem of reducing educational inequalities (Carter, 2018) demands thinking holistically, attending to the children's ecology, and also understanding the role and impact of power, privilege, and oppression on children's lives and development, through critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action (Lerner et al., 2013). Collectively, “these various spheres of context constitute the ecology of inequality, which captures the interdependent system of economic, social, and political processes at the macro, meso, and micro levels of our society” (Carter, 2018, p. 2).

From this view of society, neighborhood-school alliances have been integrated as “privileged” mechanisms for addressing the disadvantaged status of the neighborhood and for combating social and educational inequalities (Nast & Blokland, 2013; Valli et al., 2016, 2018). Some argue that the school as a resource broker must lead the fight against these inequalities — the roots of which are clearly socioeconomic — by innovating in its pedagogy, rethinking its organization, leadership and methodologies, and developing social compensation measures such as scholarship systems and school support classes in order to promote the transformation of these communities (Kerr et al., 2016). The school is therefore conceived as a place in the community where people — particularly those who are most vulnerable — can empower themselves and lead socially innovative experiences in terms of community development and the strengthening of democratic processes (Foot & Hopkins, 2010; Richardson, 2009).

Other authors have emphasized the role of community development in neighborhoods (particularly the most disadvantaged) in addressing the root of educational inequalities found in families and neighborhoods. They understand the school as an agent that must address the shortfalls of weakened communities, which must be led by professionals, even if this diverts their attention from the needs and interests of the community (Ranson & Crouch, 2009). From this perspective, attention is focused on engaging schools in community-oriented strategies, promoting the educational participation of the latter (Green, 2018); as in the case of learning communities (Puigdellívol et al., 2017) or accelerated schools (Levin, 1998).

In accord with this latter perspective, but providing important nuances with respect to leadership and types of collaboration, are the mixed approaches such as the community development model (Sampson et al., 2002), which argue that the school is a neighborhood and the neighborhood is a school. These models are based on the premise of a strong interrelationship between neighborhood and school, and argue that improvement is achieved through the community development of these entities, but at the same time, they highlight the importance of the school as a key protagonist in such a process (Anyon, 2014; Miller et al., 2011). For this perspective, the social transformation of the neighborhood and the school arises through community development, an educational impulse of the city, and the active role of the social actors involved (e.g., schools and social organizations) along with civil society. It is agreed that networking between neighborhood and school has great potential to be of use in the fight against processes of social segregation and educational disadvantage, and to instead favor those of equity and social justice. In this regard, projects of particular note are those such as “Educating City, Educating Neighborhoods”, which are based on the idea that the city and neighborhood constitute a complex system and at the same time a permanent, plural and polyhedric educational agent capable of counteracting the factors of social inequality (IAEC, 2021).

However, despite the theoretical typologies that describe these alliances, there are few empirical analyses that explain the nature of the collaboration between the actors involved or the ways in which these collaborations take place including the tensions generated, the principles that guide them, and the effects of such alliances. Likewise, Kerr et al. (2016) emphasize the need to delve into how professional and community perspectives could strengthen school-community relationships and thus promote social transformation and well-being in disadvantaged neighborhoods. In short, there is a lack of empirical evidence detailing models of school and community governance and their effects.

Method

Given these literature gaps, this article analyses how two schools and social actors of two disadvantaged neighborhoods of the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (Spain) relate, collaborate, and organize to improve their local school systems to encourage school success. On the one hand, this analysis seeks to identify the strengths of this collaboration for improving urban education, particularly regarding leadership, relationships, the purpose of alliances, and political actions. On the other hand, it aims to obtain a deeper understanding of both the local urban context and the school context. To this end, a path dependency approach is adopted, assuming that local actors, schools, and institutions have relative autonomy to implement programs and creative actions that can contribute to improving urban education in the face of global competition and growing social inequalities. This article is linked to two R + D researches⁴ and a doctoral thesis (Sánchez-Martí, 2016) conducted between 2011 and 2017, in which the authors have participated as researchers, and in which the contexts and collective study are shared. Within a longitudinal sequential mixed-method research (quan $\to$ QUAL), a second-phase in-depth qualitative case study was carried out. Following Stake's constructivist approach (1995, p. xi), case study research is understood as “the study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances”. Among the fundamental elements of case study research approaches, this study incorporated the assumptions of context-dependent research, inductive data analysis, and a theory driven approach (Sandín, 2018). This highlights that context was significant to understanding the case, and that the design itself and its methods aimed at generating inductive reasoning and interpretation rather than testing hypothesis. The case study was also oriented from a theory-driven perspective since the theory was used to guide the questions and the data to be obtained, but also with the aim of contributing to the theoretical generation (Meyer & Ward, 2014). We bounded the study by time (2011–2017) and by several cases which allowed us to carry out a multisite study.

In retrospect, although it is always hard to overlook the impact of our subject positions, thanks to staying in the neighborhoods during the course of several investigations, we were perceived as part of the community, and this allowed us to engage in a large number of documents and talks. At the beginning, we often felt as interested newcomers as we were getting to know the contexts, but over time we were perceived as colleagues doing research, which benefited our participation in many ways and had a relation to what accounts and truths we were told, as well as with the analysis carried out.

Data Collection Instruments

To analyze school-community relationships, we relied on written documents from contexts, neighborhoods, and high schools, which were taken as primary sources of information. Documents such as the School's Educational Project and the Community Education Plans were consulted and analyzed (Table 1). In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 educational and community agents from high schools and their neighborhoods. The protocol for the formal interviews and conversations with teachers and social actors was driven by the following questions, which were also useful for obtaining data for the first levels of our analysis: Which school-community relationships are the most favorable for the school success of teenagers living in socially disadvantaged settings? What alliances do they establish with their closest environment? What form do these alliances take? What is the school's leadership style and governance system with social and educational agents of the area, as well as with the local administration? What is the institutional vision and mission regarding inclusive education? What educational and pedagogical strategies do they adopt to respond to the needs of students, teachers, and families? Observational methodology was also invaluable for analyzing the information gathered, whilst documentary analysis was used to gain a more nuanced understanding of the school strategies and interventions used to encourage school success and to reflect upon why things were done in a specific way.

Table 1.

Institutional Measures and Resources for Educational Action and Attention to Diversity in the two Centres.

	Mills High School	Bond High School
Plans, Programs and Projects	School's educational project (SEP) School autonomy plan Plan for attention to diversity (PAD) Reception Plan for Newcomers Tutorial Action Plan Coexistence and mediation project Curricular diversification program	School's educational project Strategic School autonomy plan Plan for attention to diversity Reception Plan Tutorial Action Plan Guidance and accompaniment project Project “Coexistence and mediation” Strategic plan “Study classrooms"
Resources	Educational Psychology Team Intensive Support for Inclusive Schooling (SIEI in its Spanish acronym) Language and Social Cohesion Service Open classroom Reception class Logopaedic Service Health Service	Social Commission: Educational Psychology Team, Social services, City Council technicians, other entities Language and Social Cohesion Service Open classroom Reception class Study classrooms and support classes Social educator
Other strategies	Instrumental flexible groupings Elective subjects in small homogenous groups Individual and Group tracking	Flexible groupings
Specific School-Community resources and programs	Family association Community Education Plan Civic Center SL Project Excursions and extracurricular visits	Family association Community Education Plan Projects in collaboration with the neighborhood or district (e.g., District Historical Memory Recovery Project, SL Projects) Mentoring program “Cicerone” “Participate” Program, dissemination of activities of the school “Rehearsing our future” Sports Association “Friends of the School” association

Research Sites, Schools and Participants

Sites

The context of this study is in two peripheric neighborhoods of two cities in the Barcelona province (Spain) with accentuated economic hardship since 2012. These sites were selected because they are urban areas with a high spatial concentration of social and educational vulnerability (Benassi & Morlicchio, 2019).

The Lucan neighborhood, where Mills High School is located, is a working-class neighborhood with scarce services, which developed in parallel with migratory flows from southern Spain during the 1960s, even though it was projected as a garden city for the bourgeoisie. During the 1970s, neighborhood mobilizations claimed basic services such as schools and health centers, and although living conditions improved in the 1990s, this level of citizen mobilization was experiencing a significant decline in its activity. With the arrival of the 2000s, the most settled working class left the neighborhood and foreign families with low-income levels began to settle. During the economic boom in Spain, this neighborhood had higher social vulnerability indicators than the rest of the city. Currently, the foreign population accounts for 16.8% of the neighborhood (11.2% in the city). Residents in the neighborhood perceive a sense of neglect on the part of local government and show feelings of internal and external stigmatization. The neighborhood has a weak social fabric, particularly for children and youths, with a non-existent relationship between school and community actors, despite some locally led public policies such as Community Education Plans. Whilst such bottom-up governance implies a strong degree of institutionalization and financing of socio-educational actions, it does not always connect with the needs and interests of social actors of the territory, questioning their involvement and leadership, and their impact in terms of social transformation.

Bond High school is in Rodia, the most densely populated neighborhood in southern Europe (30,000 people inhabiting a space of 0.38 km²). In the early 2000s, it experienced rapid population growth (44.5%), of which 47% were migrants with a low socioeconomic status. This neighborhood presented more indicators of social fragility in times of economic boom than the rest of the city (e.g. a household income of 8510€ compared with 15,085€ in 2008). In the period of crisis and austerity, this trend become even more prominent. In 2020, the foreign population rate was 35.7% in the neighborhood versus 24.2% for the rest of the city. These data show how the neighborhood has a high concentration of dynamics of vulnerability and social exclusion that question the socio-educational opportunities of its inhabitants and, in particular, of young people. Rodia is associated with dynamics of illegal economy, drug use, crime, and problems of coexistence.

Despite its social vulnerability, it has a rich social fabric, with a moderate degree of coordination and a clear goal of establishing synergies and collaborations to address the complexity and difficulties faced by its residents, particularly children and youths. Likewise, the municipality has an established record of implementing community development projects, whilst there is a growing interest on the part of the local administration in consolidating a civic network that promotes collaboration between schools and civil society. It received the “Educating Cities for Good Coexistence Practices” Award in 2016. This neighborhood has a bottom-link approach (García & Pradel, 2019) and has examples of social projects from below that form a link with the administration, maintaining its leadership, and transforming into policies themselves (Pradel et al., 2020).

Schools

The high schools meet the following selection criteria: (a) they are located in socially disadvantaged urban contexts, intensely punished by the 2008 crisis and the 2012 austerity policies; (b) they offer both compulsory studies (ESO, in its Spanish acronym) and various modalities of the post-compulsory stage (Baccalaureates, Intermediate and Advanced Vocational Training Programs) (PC); (c) they are publicly owned schools; (d) which constitute diverse human and learning contexts because of their sizes and number of students enrolled (a macrocenter of 4 lines per grade versus a microcenter of 2); and, (e) they have different school-community governance models: one closely-connected, with a clear collaboration with the community and with a consolidated community development in the neighborhood model; the other one with a weak school-community relationship and few institutionalized community projects.

Due to their size, the schools have a diverse range of human contexts. Mills High School is a macro center of approximately one thousand students, fifty faculty people, and four educational areas with 18% children from migrant families, whilst Bond High School is a two-area center with half the number of students and half faculty people, of which more than half are the children of migrant families. The latter center has a social educator. The economic and human resources of both centers were particularly affected by the austerity policies of 2012, in which the GDP dedicated to education in Catalonia fell from 4.3% in 2010 to 3.6% in 2014. These cuts focused essentially on the social and community dimension of education.

During the period 2011–2015, students from both centers advanced mainly by following different educational paths with diverse interests along with unique family, school, social and personal experiences, which translate into different motivations for pursuing post-compulsory secondary education. The monitoring of their trajectories shows the fluctuations that occurred for all youngsters, including itinerary changes, progressive dropouts, the incorporation of new staff into the schools. And, although, these behaviors are similar in both centers, students from migrant families managed to overcome ESO-PC in greater percentages at Bond High School (80.5%) than in Mills High School (52.2%). However, in both more than half did not manage to reach the second term of PC, and of those who did so, only a minority had completed their studies and entered higher education. However, in the case of Bond High School students, the school's own policy fostered higher levels of continuing trajectories for migrant students, so that those who failed, for example, in Baccalaureates, were redirected and oriented towards other vocational programs developed by the school.

Participants

The participants were recruited via intentional sampling, according to criteria such as the accessibility of a complex sample, the availability of people to be part of the sample in a limited time interval, and its known usefulness to identify and study habits, opinions, and practices (Patton, 1990). The access to the sample came mainly through immersion in the centers and neighborhoods, contact with the participants and recruitment during the research. Regarding educational agents, the following criteria were applied: their role in the school's organization, their knowledge of school-community educational programs, their responsibility for promoting academic trajectories and transitions, particularly regarding the children of migrants. In total, we interviewed 14 educational agents of different positions, such as heads of studies or pedagogical coordinators, educational stage coordinators, group tutors, teachers, social integrators, school psychologists and school counselors. In relation to community entities and services, 21 social agents were interviewed whose positions included local administration technicians, along with members of certain neighborhood organizations and associations working specifically with youth populations. Concrete details are to be found in Cano-Hila et al. (2019).

Data Analysis

Following an interpretative approach, the data were organized and coded with Dedoose v6.2.21 following these content analysis steps: (a) creation of an archiving system of data from the documentary analysis, the transcribed interviews and all other supplementary observation records; (b) codification of the hermeneutical unit after a careful rereading of the data from which the main codes at the intersection between school-community relationships and the promotion of school success were identified inductively; and, (c) creation of a synthesis model based on the discovery, coding and interpretation of data. The content analysis began during the creation of the synthesis model, which allowed us to identify emerging patterns and codes from the reiteration of the review of the dataset. Most codes and themes emerged as the result of theoretical construction and the inductive process followed, which was essentially based on the constant comparative method. To ensure the reliability of information, qualitative analysis followed the principles of credibility, reliability, confirmability, and transferability. The research complied with the code of good research practices of the University of Barcelona (2010). Participation was voluntary and informed, and pseudonyms were used for all informants, schools, and neighborhoods.

Findings

The results presented are driven by the three broad themes that emerged at the intersection between school-community relationships and the promotion of school success, particularly for the children of migrants. These central themes organize the results, with examples drawn from the dataset.

Culturally Responsive School Leadership

Qualitative analysis of the origin of school-community relationships revealed that the deployment of educational measures and actions is first associated with the school's leadership style and the way in which the promotion of school success is understood and incorporated into the objectives for everyone at the high school.

First, as part of their mission and institutional vision, both centers emphasize the role of inclusive education in responding to the cultural landscapes of classrooms and addressing educational inequities in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Mills High School defines “its educational action with special sensitivity to the problems of the most vulnerable and the most impoverished classes and groups” (SEP1: 6). On this basis, teachers understand the actions undertaken as “paths” that allow all students to develop their skills to the maximum: “we envisage measures that favor the maximum inclusiveness of all students and avoid segregation, trying to help each student to learn in a way that is appropriate for their prior knowledge and learning abilities” (PAD1: 2). The school's style of leadership is characterized by a strong desire to create a reliable, transparent and supportive school environment, and to favor a greater involvement of the school's families. The high school remains open to the community with the intention of making everyone feel welcome to be involved in the academic and educational activity that takes place, particularly within the campus. However, as we will see later, this center has coordinated very few school-community measures. In addition, it is clear from the discourse of educational agents that expectations of the students are low and reified from the construction of the “good student”. Consequently, school success is often thought to be an individual matter.

In principle all [resources] are interesting, but if you have a very complicated group of students, no matter how much you spend… It depends on each case, if you have any other community resource, this is very interesting, right? At some point you can support someone who doesn't follow you or things like that. […] Look, Farjat is one of the good students; I mean, he has nothing to do. There are people who try regardless of being an immigrant, even if they have it very difficult, and overcome it, and others who relax, right? (T13_LUC, 1127-4791)

Bond High School, in contrast, states that given the idiosyncrasies of its students and teachers, it is necessary to “achieve a quality education for all, regardless of the general conditions, gender, social origin or abilities of each person” (SEP2: 4). And among the objectives set by the high school, it wants “to achieve a progressive improvement of educational results, greater continuity of students in post-compulsory education and, a clear link with the neighborhood and surrounding organizations to enable the development of a joint community and social project” (SEP2: 5). In one teacher's words: “We never give up on anyone. I tell my students: ‘Look, you reached the end of the course and you have failed. It doesn't matter, now is the time to get on’” (T3_ROD, 24155-24278). Therefore, for over a decade, this center has developed its own model for the social inclusion of young people, coordinating services with and for the community. In its educational and training plan, it highlights the importance of students analyzing their social reality as students from the neighborhood and, specifically, from Rodia as a municipality affected by mobility and demographic changes that have taken place over the years. Further, the active component of involving students in community actions and cultural events is added, and, although not all are always required to participate, the center promotes the idea that each student can benefit from one or other resource based on their interests and needs. This analysis takes place, above all, through methodologies such as Service-Learning (SL). Other educational agents of say they also work on this idea in subjects such as history and geography, art or citizenship, or by taking advantage of any other community initiative that adjusts to the needs of each student and the community itself:

Opening ourselves to the outside: visiting libraries, doing work outside; all services in their community go well because they see the needs that exist, the possibilities they have, the work they can do, such as visits to center, workshops, trying to involve them in science programs for example. We’re trying to do these things for them to see… For example, when they are in Baccalaureate programs, they visit research institutes, they meet college students, they can be involved in research projects assessed by the university… (T2_ROD, 15279-16196)

Among other issues, these emancipatory initiatives ensure that the most disengaged students regain their interest in learning and want to continue studying. Through the school-community relationship, an educational action is promoted aimed at minimizing the educational and social exclusion of young people who do not have a positive relationship with learning:

We have found students who, through a SL collaboration, with leisure centers, for example, have continued to be engaged in study… […] have discovered their vocation. They find they can do much more than they think. And from that moment on, when you believe more in yourself, you also have a positive response to further training. And sometimes it's a matter of selflessness that becomes an interest. Or low self-esteem that transforms into high self-esteem. And all of this helps later. (T6_ROD, 3652-5456)

In this center, what we understand by culturally sensitive leadership is that its principles, practices and political leadership actions promote the creation of inclusive learning environments for the entire educational community, particularly for the real inclusion of students and families of diverse ethnic and cultural origins. Such leadership also opposes deficit views of students, particularly those who live in poverty such as: “If you are an immigrant and you want to achieve something you have to be better. You have this handicap, right? That you may get to do like the others, but that is not enough” (T13_LUC, 46290-46691).

School-Community Relations: Between Institutionalization and Sustainability

Both centers have resources and plans designed to establish collaborations with the socio-educational agents of the area, as well as with the local administration, to achieve the objectives set out in their projects and to provide an educational response adapted to the characteristics of their students in compulsory and post-compulsory secondary education.

A priori, both show an explicit willingness to open to the neighborhood and the educational community and have a similar deployment of school-community projects and programs (Table 1). In all of them, the clear desire to open to and to relate to the environment is mentioned rather explicitly.

However, the analysis of measures in general and of school-community alliances, shows, first, that only Bond High School has coordinated projects and programs with an explicit link to the community (Table 2), and this is expressed as follows:

Networking is essential for us. We collect everything that is good for the kids, but we do not access the quantity of resources there are! […] For example, now we are conducting interviews so that they can be leisure monitors with the Esplai Foundation. We take advantage of everything; some projects are done by us and everything from outside is welcome. (T3_ROD, 749-1771)

Table 2.

Description of the School-Community Projects of Bond High School.

	Description
Social Commission	Its objective is to reduce absenteeism and improve coexistence and social cohesion. It is made up of the staff of the school, the educational psychology team, Social Services, City Council technicians and other entities. It was created in 2004–2005 and later implemented in other Catalan centres by the Department of Education.
Study classrooms	This activity is developed jointly between the school and the Leisure Center of the District. It is part of the strategic school autonomy plan, and is specifically linked to the objective of improving academic outcomes.
Support classes	The center has designed this space for students of Baccalaureate program with the aim of reducing school failure and helping students with more difficulties and/or fewer resources to pay for extracurricular support.
Open classroom	With the help of the City Council, and in collaboration with a social foundation, this resource seeks to reduce school failure and ELET by offering students with difficulties an adapted curriculum with hands-on activities in workshops held outside the Institute. It is currently being dismantled, following the entry into force of Decree 150/2017.
SL Project “Youths with the Community”	This is an institutionalized SL project in which all high school youths participate. They provide real support to community neighbors through an organization in the area over a 10-week period whilst reflecting on the importance of the services offered.
SL Project “We share rights”	This SL Project is linked to citizenship. It was created as a pilot experience on the ‘Citizenship education’ subject. This project — shared between the High School and the city's organizations —aims for youngsters to become active agents and promoters of the defense of human rights in the neighborhood.
Young Network	Intergenerational project in which young people (16–20 years old) receive training in basic digital skills so that they can then teach computer science classes to adults around them (preferably parents of students), who, for various reasons, need such skills.
Mentoring program “Cicerone”	A young mentor (Cicerone) accompanies a new student during his/her daily process of adapting to the school to bring him/her closer to the reality of the school and the neighborhood.
Program “Participate”	The aim is for the students themselves to become spokespersons for the activities carried out in the school, so that other young people – particularly who have dropped out of school for economic reasons or past negative educational experiences – become interested in them.
Sports Association	It promotes the rooting of the students and the center within the community through sports, linking them with the city, and more specifically with the neighborhood.
“Friends of the School” Association	This association created by the school offers scholarships to students so that they can continue their studies in the post-compulsory stage.

This link is built from the idea of collaboration, of co-responsibility between actors, and is far from being a dynamic of occasional participation that is born out of a sense of “commitment” or “obligation”.

We are well coordinated. The truth is that in addition to the teachers that are part of the different projects, we talk a lot, we work a lot as a team, we are very well coordinated, because if one fails, the others can do the tasks, right? The goal is very clear. And it is true that with the kids we also try to convey that it is not only a school project, that it is done and that's it, but that it is also stepping out of the school, getting to know the community, interacting with other cultures, and to see that there are more options. (T5_ROD, 1949-3217)

In contrast, the analysis of Mills High school confirms that joint work through projects related to other social organizations in the neighborhood and the local administration takes place in the form of specific collaborative actions coordinated either by the management team or by a group of teachers. In most cases these are not part of a joint community and social project and do not have clear educational objectives. Whilst the center has a family association with the aim of carrying out all kinds of activities, its participation in environmental projects is anecdotal and one-way. For example, they have a SL Project to design experiments to assess the impact of pollution and, year after year, visits and outings are made to organizations such as the Data Processing Center of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. However, it is thought that it should be the environment that reaches the center and, in this sense, the school disengages from its institutional responsibility in terms of promoting success for all, stating that there is a lack of external resources to be able to respond to all students:

Given the socioeconomic profile of the neighborhood, I think that the city council should pour more resources in this municipality. I guess now it's also because of the cuts; […] programs help them to have better educational inclusion, both in the center and with the municipality. […] but 20–25% of these students have some measure of adaptation, either they are in medium-low-level groups, either they are in the Reception Classroom or … well, for different stories, if it's not one cultural pattern it's another and it's very difficult to place them somewhere. (T9_LUC, 964-337)

Moreover, the way in which school-community projects are put into practice does not always align with the educational goals of schools, and there is room for improvement from the teachers’ perspectives: “Despite all the programs, we, too, should change organizational aspects that are clearly not working well. We should change, perhaps, the attention paid to diversity” (T18_LUC, 44010-44103).

In contrast, Bond High School, in addition to the usual development of plans and programs (Table 1), also coordinates other projects involving community actors and local administration and these are referred to in a more explicit and stable way (Table 2), demonstrating the clear-cut link between the school and the surrounding neighborhood and organizations.

In Bond High School, the professionals interviewed from both the public administration and the socio-educational field point out that the main actions in terms of care for the young population are the set of measures taken under the so-called “Youth Axis or Commission”. This strategy encompasses all community agents who work with youths in the neighborhood and is based on proposals that are linked to improving the living conditions of citizens, as well as establishing connections between the general population and young people with shared interests and needs: “In 2009 a complete diagnosis was made, particularly regarding the youth population and its situation in the neighborhood. And from this moment, three lines of work have been established: accompanying, referential spaces and leisure” (ROD5_Community Plan Technician).

The idea of this Youth Commission is to get closer to the youth population, and to offer stimulating proposals. The goal of providing meaningful participation opportunities for young people is the driving force behind this exercise, giving them spaces for companionship, advice, and support.

During 2011–2012, the creation of dialogue and mediation spaces was prioritized as a result of several previous conflicts. The construction of these spaces was achieved through activities such as painting walls of the squares and the Festa Major. It also focused on the issue of early school leaving, which is very worrying in this area. (ROD12_Former Community Plan Technician)

Consolidating this commission involves being part of the various institutional organizational cultures, contributing to the development of participatory practices in educational institutions with appropriate structures. This creates spaces for collaboration, cooperation and networking, as required by successful experiences such as the Community Educational Plans.

The Community Plan continues to work and network with both publicly funded and partially funded schools and high schools in the city. It is important to reinforce the idea that we educate ourselves in both the school and the neighborhood. (ROD4_Community Education Plan Technician).

Unfortunately, all efforts made in line with the Community Educational Plan since the early 2000s — which sought to consolidate collaborations and synergies between the school, community and local administration — have been weakened by the implementation of austerity policies in 2012, essentially in the community dimension of education.

With the crisis and subsequent austerity, the Community Educational Plan is at a minimum. The same is true of the Neighborhood Law 2/2004, plans for social cohesion. All projects that had a community dimension have been severely cut, as have the professionals involved in them: social educators, integrators… (ROD4_ Community Education Plan Technician)

In Mills High School, the actions are less coordinated and connected to each other, which has a clear impact on the sustainability of school-community actions.

Purpose of School-Community Partnerships

The aims pursued in school-community partnerships are concerned with how the trajectories of the two centers are conceived. Although in both it is assumed that, given the students diversity, the pedagogical and educational action of the school must also be plural, they conceive educational strategies differently and, therefore, the two centers differ about how the strategies are instrumentalized, which, in turn also affects the establishment of community relations.

At Mills High School, school-community measures for promoting school success are practically non-existent. Moreover, the deployment of the measures is mainly designed to provide a tailored educational response to students in the compulsory education stage. When routine measures (reinforcement groups, flexible groupings) are ineffective, they opt for alternative paths of a more specific and/or extraordinary nature (e.g., individual plans or educational compensation programs). As an example, in the School's Attention to Diversity Plan, the strategies and resources implemented (Table 1) are divided and specified according to levels (from 1st to 4th of ESO) based on the number of enrolments per course and the number of students with specific educational support needs including new students, students supervised by the educational psychology teams, and/or students with a profile report from social services. All these actions are designed with the aim of customizing the educational action of all students to acquire the necessary skills at each stage, which are no longer deemed to be necessary in the PC stage:

Typically, these measures are aimed at students with more difficulties, those who are struggling, and who can barely pass the ESO. Those who go through all these mechanisms of individual attention, low heterogeneous groups -we would say-, etc. […] I don't find them any more in PC education. (T18_LUC, 496-1936)

Similarly, the measures specifically activated in the post-compulsory stage are not coordinated by taking advantage of community resources. At Bond High School, three main measures are institutionalized to promote the continuous development of all students after secondary education: (1) they offer the option of studying for the baccalaureate in 3 years instead of 2; (2) they continue to organize flexible groupings in vocational training programs; and (3) they highlight the importance of educational guidance, tutorial action, and the transfer of information as necessary mechanisms for supporting the students in this stage and favoring their future academic and work transitions.

There is a big difference between vocational course and the Baccalaureates. In this last option, this whole thing isn't done, because, of course, post-compulsory studies are already another world; so to speak, right? In the ESO the student is supported and helped very much during the 4 years to try to get him/her to graduate. In contrast, in PC stages, the mentality is no longer the same, but it depends more on guidance […]. For us it's not a failure, for example, a kid who at first [of PC] doesn't succeed but then discovers by himself that what he likes is wood, right? (T15_LUC, 981-2434)

Bond High School is instead an organization that is notable for its school-community relationship, being a reference center and source of inspiration for the neighborhood with an agenda that is centered on achieving the distribution of quality opportunities for all. A distinctive feature of the school is that the management understands the need to deploy measures such as the mechanisms necessary to respond to its students characteristics, not only for promoting higher graduation rates at the end of the ESO, but also to ensure that young people receive the support they need for continuing to study in the post-compulsory stage. A holistic approach is taken to the actions implemented, regardless of the course in which the students are enrolled (ESO and/or PC). Teachers understand the center to be a socio-community service that is open to and feeds on the environment, and one that promotes multiple learning opportunities that expand its institutional role beyond the time and space of the school. Their school-community programs constitute a dual-purpose tool that guides and supports the students; the programs allow them to make contact and connect with the community whilst providing spaces to, for example, reflect on the training and professional options that are available to them, thereby dismantling barriers to participation.

Projects are super important to the reality we have at school, aren't they? They help them know the environment, to participate and see that what they do is useful and important, which is basic, right? Many times, by doing these things outside of school, seeing that there is another reality makes them reflect, think, and continue, or at least finish compulsory studies, and sometimes even go on to enroll in a vocational program. I consider that the existence of all these plans and measures is very important for involving both students and families. (T6_ROD, 1222-1948)

Based on this mission, they state that “the educational and human success of their students depends on networking” (SEP2: 5), which is why years ago they set up what they call the social commission. Once a week they bring together various professionals, including the management team, counselor, social integrators, and the educational psychology team, which, together creates an educational response adapted to the characteristics and needs of the students. In addition, they establish as a principle “the maintenance of ties and relationships between the center and its environment” (SEP2: 8), from which they coordinate periodic links with organizations such as the City Council. They were therefore included in the European Social Fund's PROA (Programas de Refuerzo, Orientación y Apoyo [Reinforcement, Guidance and Support Plan]) project, which enabled them to consolidate their educational program through a strategic plan that has since promoted “the improvement of educational outcomes, social cohesion, and the continuity of students in PC education” (SEP2: 11).

Discussion and Implications

We now turn to the questions posed at the beginning of this article regarding school and community governance models in socially vulnerable contexts and their impact on promoting the academic success of young people.

Whilst a review of the literature on school-community relationships reveals a distinction between three main perspectives, which we can understand as ‘school-centred’ (Kerr et al., 2016), ‘neighborhood-centered’ (Green, 2018), or hybridized ‘school-community’ alliances (Sampson et al., 2002), the findings of this study can essentially be placed in this last perspective. The results indicate that the dynamics that become visible in schools and their impact on young people's trajectories are clearly interconnected with social processes that take place in the neighborhood and city.

Although school-community relationships exist in all kinds of environments, the characteristics that motivate them, their institutionalization and sustainability, and the leadership that promotes them can be translated to either “compensatory or assistance” measures or “transformative” measures for young people.

Taking as a reference the school and community governance models of Valli et al. (2016), Mills High School is more closely in line with the school and interagency collaboration model, while Bond High School responds to the community development model. It is interesting to note how this last school — despite being in a more socially disadvantaged context, with significantly higher indicators of social vulnerability — achieves higher percentages of continuity between stages, and greater educational adherence of teenagers despite the fluctuations that occur throughout their trajectories. Analysis of the school-community collaboration between actors in both schools indicates that Bond High School has become a local and socio-educational welfare system, resulting in the application of more transformative measures and dynamics.

The literature emphasizes the challenges that schools and community groups face in maintaining viable partnership (Douglass & Sampson, 2014), indicating the importance of practitioners and policy makers in creating the conditions for success. Our results reveal how the educational objectives are not always aligned with practice in schools. The leadership practices that operate in these schools do not always promote supportive environments favoring greater quality education, social justice and equity for all (Tarozzi, 2015), at least in terms of advancing inclusive education beyond the mere provision of special education in general education settings or curricula (Waitoller & King Thorius, 2016). Thus, these findings contribute about the importance of schools working with communities to improve the education of students in disadvantaged neighborhoods. They show how a clear and stable partnership between school, community and local administration has significant transformative potential in terms of school success, equity and social justice, provided that various conditions are met.

Favorable Conditions for Creating a Stable and Transformative Partnership Between School, Community, and Local Administration in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

The first condition is concerned with the development of governance models known as bottom-linked models (García & Pradel, 2019). These refer to institutional adjustments between social actors based on collaboration, horizontality, prioritization of the creativity of the social and educational fabric, recognition of the other as a partner with capacity for action; learning between social actors; support from local administration for bottom-up initiatives and maintaining leadership by promoting stakeholders.

The second condition is to be part of a community development strategy co-designed between socio-educational actors and the local administration. The role of the neighborhood as a privileged context and actor, particularly in the European context, makes it possible to develop innovative forms of citizen participation (Musterd et al., 2006; Pradel et al., 2020). In this regard, the need to strengthen the links between the proposals of the socio-educational community and the interests of adolescents and their families becomes important (Caspe et al., 2007). Moreover, we have found that schools are key to facilitating and encouraging community youth participation. To do so effectively, we must move forward with systemic models that include the relationship between school, community and families (Epstein et al., 2011). This finding aligns with the suggestions of others who have pointed out that the isolation of the teacher in contexts such as the classroom or the school where everything seems to be “for yesterday”, and absorbed with such issues as bureaucracy runs the risk of making them poorer teachers and agents with lower educational outcomes (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012).

The third condition is that the partnership becomes increasingly stronger when projects are built on an existing neighborhood-level social fabric, which is moderately coordinated and active. Therefore, the community efforts already initiated can be understood as contexts that are conducive to promoting the benefits of school-community alliances (Daniel et al., 2020).

Fourth, the school is also a sine qua non condition for the coordination of the partnership. This further highlights the importance of teachers’ roles and responsibilities within school leadership regarding to students’ achievement (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2018). Among the characteristics of leadership for educational success, social inclusion, and social justice, stand out aspects such as: teachers’ reflexivity, context-sensitive leadership, culturally responsive teachers, and commitment to collaborate and involve with the community. Johnson (2007) defines culturally responsive school leadership with three principles: fostering new definitions of diversity; promoting inclusive instructional practices within schools by supporting, facilitating, or being a catalyst for change to challenge inequalities in society at large and at the school and district level; and building connections between schools and communities. In Bond High School these principles translate into: the teachers’ high expectations of their students, the explicit belief that they can improve their starting conditions and succeed beyond the scope of their neighborhood, the care ethic nurtured by valuing the youth's culture, and a responsible commitment to the wider community and the educability of children, particularly migrants, for developing critical awareness. In this regard, the school is a reference for the social and community fabric, and, at the same time, facilitates the link between social entities, educational resources, and local administration. Examples of this are school Service-Learning programs that connect with the social fabric of the neighborhood and that inspire public education policies at the city level.

Finally, another condition of the partnership is concerned with the degree of coherence that exists between the organizational culture and the socio-educational action of teachers. Although both centers are concerned — at the institutional level — with promoting educational continuity, the pedagogical measures applied in Mills High school are not achieving this goal. This center is less able to claim that all its students are accessing the resources they need to improve educationally. In contrast, Bond High School has also highlighted the trajectory of their work with migrant students, which is notable for its greater consensus and clear definition of the educational objectives pursued according to a notion of school success in terms of equity.

Concluding Remarks and Prospects

In short, the main effects of both types of school-community partnerships are that the school and interagency collaboration model employed focuses on specific, occasional, and disconnected collaborations between particular individuals that do not respond to a consensual strategic approach. Consequently, their impact is also limited, barely empowering the agents involved whilst fostering very little co-responsibility. In contrast, the Community Development Model, along with a culturally responsive school leadership (DeMatthews & Izquierdo, 2018), enables the progression of more stable and consolidated strategies, with greater sustainability and therefore greater capacity for impact and change. As reflected in the case of Rodia, the local administration extends to public policy and extrapolates to other parts of the city's projects and experiences that are promoted and led by schools, which have first-hand knowledge of the needs and interests of their students and families.

From a methodological standpoint, this work highlights the urgent need for communities to work together with schools to develop a citizenry that can address present and future challenges, particularly when it comes to creating alliances against exclusion. Our findings provide evidence regarding models of school and community governance, highlighting those aspects that positively affect the promotion of school success, which is characterized not only by academic results or school persistence, but also by the increased civic engagement and community participation of young people (Cano-Hila et al., 2019).

In sum, school-community-local administration partnership models, based on a bottom-linked governance system at the school and community level, are presented as a strategic approach that favors school success, equity and social justice, which has significant transformative potential for both the educational and social spheres. This leads directly to a recommendation for policy and practice, which is that encouraging these approaches can empower young people, families, and education professionals, placing them as protagonists of change, both in terms of quality of life in their neighborhoods and their educational opportunities and experiences. Also, it opens a gateway to exchange resources among agents and institutions. Future research should examine similar case studies, paying special attention to the interdependence between social, economic and political characteristics of each local context and the conditions of governance between school, community and local administration. The collaboration and joint effort between all agents and institutions is necessary since they cannot be actors of social transformation in isolation. They all constitute the socio-educational community. Thus, research should move forward progressively, accumulating more knowledge to better understand these local experiences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (grant number EDU/3445/2011, AP2010-3174); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (grant number EDU2011-25960); and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (grant number EDU2013-46704-R).

ORCID iD

Angelina Sánchez-Martí

Notes

Author Biographies

Ana Belén Cano-Hila is a Serra Húnter Fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of Barcelona. She has collaborated in the management of regional and national projects of research on social cohesion, culture and participation; social innovation and governance; immigration and education. She has been visiting researcher in University Milano Bicocca, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and New University of Lisbon.

Angelina Sánchez-Martí is a Serra Húnter Fellow of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education in the Department of Applied Pedagogy, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). She is a researcher of CER-Migracions. Her research lies on the study of the dimensions and impact of sociocultural diversity and social inequality in education. One of her main interests has focused on the student achievement of children of migrants.

References

Andreotti

Mingione

Polizzi

(2012). Local welfare systems: A challenge for social cohesion. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1925–1940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012444884

Andrews

(2021). The new age of empire: How racism and colonialism still rule the world. Allen Lane.

Anyon

(2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education and a new social movement. Routledge.

Auerbach

(2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school–family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603

Author Surname

Author First-Name

. (2020). Other Info.

Benassi

Morlicchio

(2019). New urban poverty. In Orum

A. M.

(Ed.), The wiley blackwell encyclopedia of urban and regional studies (pp. 1–8). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0466

Blokland

(2017). The public life of social capital. In Hall

Burdett

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the 21st century city (pp. 552–566). Sage.

Bonal

Tarabini

(2016). Being poor at school: Exploring conditions of educability in the favela. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.924394

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

10.

Cano-Hila

A. B.

Sabariego

Folgueiras

(2019). La participación comunitaria de los jóvenes en contextos urbanos vulnerables: Aportaciones desde un diagnostico colaborativo en el área metropolitana de Barcelona (España). OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 14(2), 313–342. https://doi.org/10.14198/OBETS2019.14.2.02

11.

Carter

P. L.

(2018). The multidimensional problems of educational inequality require multidimensional solutions. Educational Studies, 54(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2017.1409225

12.

Caspe

Lopez

M. E.

Wolos

(2007). Family involvement in elementary school children’s education. Harvard Family Research Project, 2(Winter 2006/2007), 1–12.

13.

Cuca

Ranci

(Eds.) (2016). Unequal citites: The challange of post-industrial transition in times of austerity. Routledge.

14.

Cummings

Regeer

de Haan

Zweekhorst

Bunders

(2018). Critical discourse analysis of perspectives on knowledge and the knowledge society within the sustainable development goals. Development Policy Review, 36(6), 727–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12296

15.

Daniel

Sunshine Malone

H.-L.

Kirkland

D. E.

(2020). A step closer to racial equity: Towards a culturally sustaining model for community schools. Urban Education, 004208592095490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920954906

16.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Izquierdo

(2020). Supporting Mexican American immigrant students on the border: A case study of culturally responsive leadership in a dual language elementary school. Urban Education, 55(3), 362–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756715

17.

Douglass

Sampson

(2014). Promise neighborhoods: The promise and politics of community capacity building as urban school reform. Urban Education, 49(8), 955–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557645

18.

Epstein

J. L.

Galindo

C. L.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2011). Levels of leadership: Effects of district and school leaders on the quality of school programs of family and community involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 462–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10396929

19.

Foot

Hopkins

(2010). A glass half-full: How an asset approach can improve community health and well-being. Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA).

20.

García

Pradel

(2019). Bottom-linked approach to social innovation governance. In Van den

Mehmood

Paidakaki

Parra

(Eds.), Social innovation as political transformation: Thoughts for a better world (pp. 97–98). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974288.00030

21.

Ginwright

Seigel

. (2019). Social innovation alone can’t solve racial inequity. Stanford Social innovation review. Informing and inspiring leaders of social change. https://doi.org/10.48558/w0jt-e920

22.

Green

T. L.

(2018). School as community, community as school: Examining principal leadership for urban school reform and community development. Education and Urban Society, 50(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516683997

23.

Hargreaves

Shirley

D. L.

(2012). The global fourth way. The quest for educational excellence. Corwin.

24.

International Association of Educating Cities (IAEC). (2020). Educating cities. Ajuntament de Barcelona. http://www.bcn.cat/edcities/aice/estatiques/angles/sec_iaec.html

25.

Johnson

(2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging U.S. Schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in Educational Administration, 35(3), 49–57. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lauri-Johnson/publication/257922446_Rethinking_successful_school_leadership_in_challenging_US_schools_Culturally_responsive_practices_in_schoolcommunity_relationships/links/00b4953631c3ac266b000000/Rethinking-successful-school-leadership-in-challenging-US-schools-Culturally-responsive-practices-in-school-community-relationships.pdf

26.

Kerr

Dyson

Gallannaugh

(2016). Conceptualising school-community relations in disadvantaged neighborhoods: Mapping the literature. Educational Research, 58(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1207872

27.

Kneebone

Reeves

R. V.

(2016). The intersection of race, place, and multidimensional poverty. Bookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-intersection-of-race-place-and-multidimensional-poverty/

28.

Ladson-Billings

(2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104

29.

Leonard

(2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5), 987–1010. https://doi-org.are.uab.cat/10.1177/0042085911400337

30.

Lerner

J. V.

Bowers

E. P.

Minor

Boyd

M. J.

Mueller

M. K.

Schmid

K. L.

Napolitano

C. M.

Lewin-Bizan

Lerner

R. M.

(2013). Positive youth development: Processes, philosophies, and programs. In Lerner

R. M.

Easterbrooks

M. A.

Mistry

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Developmental psychology (pp. 365–392). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

31.

Levin

H. M.

(1998). Accelerated schools: A decade of evolution. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hopkins

(Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 807–830). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4944-0_40

32.

Linse

C. T.

(2011). Creating taxonomies to improve school-home connections with families of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Education and Urban Society, 43(6), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380908.

33.

Meyer

Ward

(2014). ‘How to’ use social theory within and throughout qualitative research in healthcare contexts. Sociology Compass, 8(5), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12155

34.

Miller

P. M.

Brown

Hopson

(2011). Centering love, hope, and trust in the community. Urban Education, 46(5), 1078–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910395951

35.

Milner

H. R.

(2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516

36.

Muñoz-Moreno

J. L.

Rodríguez-Gómez

Barrera-Corominas

(2013). Herramientas para la mejora de las organizaciones educativas y su relación con el entorno. Perspectiva Educacional, 52(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.4151/07189729-Vol.52-Iss.1-Art.148

37.

Musterd

Murie

Kesteloot

(2006). Neighborhoods of poverty: Urban social exclusion and integration in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Nast

Blokland

(2014). Social mix revisited: Neighborhood institutions as setting for boundary work and social capital. Sociology, 48(3), 482–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513500108

39.

Öhrn

(2012). Urban education and segregation: The responses from young people. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.1.45

40.

Öhrn

Weiner

(2007). Urban education in Europe: Section editors’ introduction. In Pink

W. T.

Noblit

G. W.

(Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 397–411). Springer.

41.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.

42.

Pink

W. T.

Noblit

G. W.

(Eds.) (2017). Second international handbook of urban education. Springer.

43.

Pradel

Cano-Hila

A.B.

García

(Eds.) (2020). Social innovation and urban governance. Citizenship, civil society and social movements. Edward Elgar.

44.

Puigdellívol

Molina

Sabando

Gómez

Petreñas

(2017). When community becomes an agent of educational support: Communicative research on learning communities in catalonia. Disability & Society, 32(7), 1065–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1331835

45.

Ranson

Crouch

(2009). Towards a new governance of schools in the remaking of civil society. CfBT Education Trust.

46.

Richardson

(2009). The full-service community school movement. Lessons from the James Adams community school. Palgrave Macmillan.

47.

Sampson

R. J.

Morenoff

J. D.

Gannon-Rowley

(2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 443–478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114

48.

Sánchez-Martí

. (2016). Trajectòries d’èxit educatiu dels joves de famílies immigrades a secundària postobligatòria: Centres educatius i agents institucionals [Doctoral dissertation]. Universitat de Barcelona. http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/400099

49.

Sandín

M. P.

(2018). Estudios de casos theory driven: Inmigración y éxito escolar. Magis. Revista Internacional de Investigación En Educación, 11(22), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.m11-22.ectd

50.

Snellma

Silva

J. M.

Putnam

R. D.

(2015). Inequity outside the classroom: Growing class differences in participation in extracurricular activities. Voices in Urban Education, 40, 7–15.

51.

Tarozzi

(2015). Dall’intercultura alla giustizia sociale. Per un progetto pedagogico e politico di cittadinanza globale. FrancoAngeli.

52.

Todorov

(2014). The inner enemies of democracy. Polity Press.

53.

United Nations. (2020). Take action for the sustainable development goals. United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

54.

University of Barcelona (2010). Code of good research practices. Agència de Polítiques i de Qualitat UB.

55.

Valli

Stefanski

Jacobson

(2016). Typologizing school–community partnerships. Urban Education, 51(7), 719–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914549366

56.

Valli

Stefanski

Jacobson

(2018). School-community partnership models: Implications for leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1124925

57.

Waitoller

F. R.

King Thorius

K. A.

(2016). Cross-Pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366

58.

Welsh

R. O.

Swain

W. A.

(2020). (Re)Defining urban education: A conceptual review and empirical exploration of the definition of urban education. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20902822

59.

Wenman

(2013). Agonistic democracy. Constituent power in the era of globalisation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777158